“Apple Inc was handed a mixed ruling by a U.S. appeals court in the latest twist in a blockbuster intellectual property battle with Samsung Electronics Co Ltd, as a prior patent infringement verdict was upheld but a trademark finding that the iPhone’s appearance could be protected was thrown out,” Andrew Chung and Julia Love report for Reuters. “That means up to 40 percent of a $930 million verdict which had been won by Apple must be reconsidered.”
“‘This is a victory for design and those who respect it,’ Apple said in a statement on Monday,” Chung and Love report. “Although the opinion was mixed, it tilts strongly in Apple’s favor, upholding the bulk of its damages award and reinforcing the principles of design that the company sued to advance, said Brian Love, an assistant professor of law at the University of Santa Clara.”
“The 2012 trial between the two smartphone titans was widely watched, and the jury found Samsung violated several Apple patents including those related to iPhone’s design and appearance,” Chung and Love report. “Apple was eventually awarded $930 million in damages, but failed to win a ban on the sale of the infringing Samsung phones, which are now no longer on the market. The appeals court further muddied the waters for Apple by ordering the court in San Jose to reconsider the $382 million portion awarded for trade dress dilution.”
MacDailyNews Take: Despite the happy face stickers with which Apple’s PR department is trying to paper this over, this is a travesty.
As we wrote this morning:
If Samsung’s products aren’t trade dress infringements, then trade dress protection is meaningless. If eMachines’ eOne knockoff of the iMac infringed Apple’s trade dress, and it certainly did, then Samsung has clearly infringed Apple’s trade dress multiple times.
By by the way, a question for the courts, if Jony Ive’s work has no value, why is he getting paid millions of dollars per year?
Apple iMac (left) and eMachines’ trade dress infringing eOne (right)
@George, what does “design” have to do with Ericsson’s SEP patents? Totally two different issues. And, the issue isn’t whether Apple will pay, it’s what is considered Fair and Reasonable under FRAND.
It’ll be 3 years in August since a California jury awarded Apple their original $1.05 billion in damages. Then, over 2 years ago, clown car operator Lucy Koh took her red pen to the judgment subtracting $440 billion.
Then we all waited. And waited.
Now we have another whack at the damages pinata and another year gone by. Not one penny has been moved into Apple accounts. Three years, 2 court-mandated deductions to the jury award, $0.
The patent system in this country and the litigious clusterfsck designed to protect it is broken. When all the innovation is siphoned from this country because the system designed to protect American innovation cannot come close to delivering on its promises, we can all look back on this circle-jerk as the case that started it all.
“‘This is a victory for design and those who respect it,’ says the company that won’t pay Ericsson for its patents.
Ericsson wants more than reasonable; a court will decide. That wasn’t even a half-assed try at trolling.
@George, what does “design” have to do with Ericsson’s SEP patents? Totally two different issues. And, the issue isn’t whether Apple will pay, it’s what is considered Fair and Reasonable under FRAND.
It’ll be 3 years in August since a California jury awarded Apple their original $1.05 billion in damages. Then, over 2 years ago, clown car operator Lucy Koh took her red pen to the judgment subtracting $440 billion.
Then we all waited. And waited.
Now we have another whack at the damages pinata and another year gone by. Not one penny has been moved into Apple accounts. Three years, 2 court-mandated deductions to the jury award, $0.
The patent system in this country and the litigious clusterfsck designed to protect it is broken. When all the innovation is siphoned from this country because the system designed to protect American innovation cannot come close to delivering on its promises, we can all look back on this circle-jerk as the case that started it all.
That’s bullshit from the judiciary. Thanks for the befores and afters.